Skip to main content

Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

John Conyers
U.S. Representative, D-Michigan, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN2 06/13/2013
Part 1 Conyers: it is my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state, collecting billions of electronic records on law-abiding Americans every single day. a point, the recent disclosure confirmed by the administration that section 215 of the USA
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, D-Michigan, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN2 06/13/2013
Part 2 Conyers: Patriot Act is being used to engage in a nationwide dragnet of telecommunications records. I have along with many of my colleagues both democrats and Republicans alike, have long expressed concern that section 215 fails to impose a meaningful limit on the government's ability to collect this type of information.
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, D-Michigan, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN2 06/13/2013
Part 1 Conyers: If every call is relevant, then the relevant standard we enacted into law has little practical meaning. Another point is that total secrecy in which surveillance operates under the Patriot Act and FISA. This secrecy denies Congress
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, D-Michigan, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN2 06/13/2013
Part 2 Conyers: the opportunity with meaningful oversight and prevents the public from holding its government accountable for its action. I can see that it's a difficult and sensitive issue to resolve. But that is our job.
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, D-Michigan, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN2 06/13/2013
Conyers: Look, the Verizon system -- how can the government collect information on all of the Verizon system if the statute limits the government to those records that are relevant to. If they are relevant, relevant under your interpretation, means that anything and everything goes and that's what you did in the example you just gave me. ( >> the gentleman's time has expired. We're going to be very close to the five-minute rule. It's an excellent question will have to wait for the answer.)
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, D-Michigan, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Conyers: But I maintain that the fourth amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure means that this metadata collected in such a super aggregated fashion can result in a fourth amendment violation before you do anything (else)
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Conyers: You've already violated the law as far as I am concerned. That is in my view the problem. Why didn't we just tell everybody about it is because the American people would be totally outraged as they are getting now as they become familiar (with this)
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Conyers Part 1: Every Phone number that they've ever called is already a matter of record. And we skip over whether the collection was a fourth amendment violation. We just say that the access proved in one case or two, that it was very important and that's why we did it this way. I see this as a
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Conyers Part 2: A complete failure. we changed the Patriot Act to add relevancy as a standard because of this very same problem that has now been revealed to be existing.
John Conyers
U.S. Representative, Judiciary Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Conyers part 4: And so I feel very uncomfortable about using aggregated meta data on hundreds of millions of Americans, everybody, including every member of Congress and every citizen who has a phone in the united states of America. This is unsustainable. It's outrageous and must be stopped immediately.
Showing 1 through 10 of 29
Page 1 2 3